JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior) has stated the case under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") and referred the undernoted questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated June 30, 1987, passed in Second Appeal No. 351-PBR/86, for our opinion : "(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Notification No. 1100(17)-V-ST/79 dated March 31, 1979, issued under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, does not apply to sale of monoblocks and that monoblocks are not centrifugal pumps ? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that monoblocks sold by the appellant are not included in term centrifugal pumps exigible to 3 per cent tax under the said notification ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant-assessee deals in purchase and sale of pumping sets, centrifugal pumps, air-compressor, etc. During the period from April 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982, the applicant-assessee sold monoblock pumping sets and claimed the benefit of tax at 3 per cent under Notification No. 1100(17)-V-ST/79 dated March 31, 1979. The assessing officer, however, assessed the turnover of monoblock pumping sets at 5 per cent under entry No. 12 of Part IV of Schedule II appended to the Act. Copy of the assessment order dated June 30, 1984, passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, in Assessment Case No. 140/82 (Provincial) is at annexure "B". The first appellate authority maintained the order. The copy of the appellate order dated July 23, 1985, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, in Appeal Case No. 116/84 (Provincial) is at annexure "C". In second appeal, the Tribunal held that monoblock pumping sets sold by the applicant were not "centrifugal pumps". The Tribunal, therefore, maintained the orders of the assessing officer and appellate authority on June 30, 1987, in Case No. 351-PBR/86 (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act. On that application, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion. 3. The Tribunal, therefore, maintained the orders of the assessing officer and appellate authority on June 30, 1987, in Case No. 351-PBR/86 (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act. On that application, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department. 4. Shri Choudhary submitted that the questions stand concluded by the common order of this Court dated December 6, 1995 [Since reported in [1996] 101 STC 382 (MP).] rendered in Misc. Civil Case Nos. 389, 390, 393 and 421 of 1986 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Rajesh Electricals, Indore). 5. Shri Mathur was unable to point out as to how the aforesaid order did not bind the present case. 6. As contained in the statement of case, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case of Shri Krishna Sales Corporation [1990] 23 VKN 475 held that monoblock pumping sets as well as coupled pumping sets are centrifugal pumping sets and are covered by the notification referred to above. The order of the Tribunal does not throw proper light as to why the aforesaid view was not followed. In the cases, referred to above, the undernoted two question were projected for our consideration and answer : "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding the sale of monoblock pumping sets at the rate applicable to centrifugal pumps at 3 per cent ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of revenue was justified in holding that coupled pumping sets were not centrifugal pumps and, therefore, not covered by Notification No. 1100(17)-V-ST dated March 31, 1979 ?" 7. After surveying the legal position, this Court answered that monoblock pumping sets were liable to be taxed at the rate applicable to centrifugal pumps, i.e., 3 per cent and that benefit of notification dated March 31, 1979, was applicable. 8. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, the meaning of "centrifugal" is as under : "(i) Moving or tending to move away from centre; (ii) using or acting on by centrifugal forces; (iii) conveying away from a centre : efferent; (iv) a machine that uses or causes centrifugal movement." 9. 8. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, the meaning of "centrifugal" is as under : "(i) Moving or tending to move away from centre; (ii) using or acting on by centrifugal forces; (iii) conveying away from a centre : efferent; (iv) a machine that uses or causes centrifugal movement." 9. The meaning of "centrifugal force" is "the force tending to pull a thing outward when it is rotating rapidly around a centre". "Centrifugal pumps" are of two types as popularly known in commercial transaction. Monoblock centrifugal pump is one marketable commodity and is sold as such as one unit in one block. The centrifugal pump and electric motor are attached with one common shaft and are inseparable [1980} 46 STC 504 (P&H) [Paul Electric Company v. Assistance Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Inspection)]. In the above decision, the High Court placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in case of Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. [1978] 42 STC 433, has held that a monoblock centrifugal pump is included in the words "centrifugal pump". Coupled pump sets are those in which the centrifugal is coupled with either electric motor or diesel engine. The question whether coupled pump sets are centrifugal pumps has been dealt with in the case of Sterling Machine Tools v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1979] 43 STC 72 (All.). It is held that the pump and not a water pump, although it can pump out water on being attached to a diesel engine or electric motor. Centrifugal pumps become capable of pumping out only with the aid of diesel engine or an electric motor. 10. The Tribunal is required to ascertain the use and ultimate purpose of taxation. It was on that basis that the Tribunal was required to appreciate whether the sale was governed by the aforesaid notification. 11. The Allahabad High Court in [1987] 65 STC 227 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indian Turpentine & Rosin Co. 10. The Tribunal is required to ascertain the use and ultimate purpose of taxation. It was on that basis that the Tribunal was required to appreciate whether the sale was governed by the aforesaid notification. 11. The Allahabad High Court in [1987] 65 STC 227 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indian Turpentine & Rosin Co. Ltd.) held as under : "Held, dismissing the revision, that if a commodity was used for two different purposes, it was the use which would determine the nature of the commodity liable to be taxed, and that the Tribunal was justified in holding that 85 per cent of the vegetable turpentine oil produced by the respondent, sold to the aforesaid firm, fell under items 31 of the List of Notification No. 5785 dated 7th September, 1981, and was chargeable to sales tax at 4 per cent." 12. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishna Sales Corporation (1990) 23 VKN 475 and in view of the decision taken by this Court in the aforesaid four Misc. civil cases on December 6, 1995, we conclude that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the notification dated March 31, 1979, issued under section 12 of the Act did not apply to the sale of monoblocks or that monoblocks were not centrifugal pumps. We also hold that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the monoblocks sold by the assessee were not included in term centrifugal pumps exigible to 3 per cent tax under the said notification. 13. In Schedule II, under section 6(1) of the Act, there is an entry No. 12 in its Part IV of this Schedule, as noted below : "Tractors, tractor trailers, pumping sets and spare parts and accessories thereof. These items are taxable at 3 per cent with effect from August 1, 1985 as substituted vide Act No. 14 of 1985." 14. According to the notification dated March 31, 1979, as per entry No. (ix) of the notification, "centrifugal pump" have been excluded from entry No. 12 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act and 3 per cent tax is imposable on centrifugal pumps. According to the notification dated March 31, 1979, as per entry No. (ix) of the notification, "centrifugal pump" have been excluded from entry No. 12 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act and 3 per cent tax is imposable on centrifugal pumps. Entry (ix) of the said notification reads as under : "Agricultural implements worked with the aid of power that is to say - entry (ix) - 'Centrifugal pumps'." It is luculent that monoblocks sold by the assessee are centrifugal pumps and, therefore, according to the said notification are exigible at 3 per cent instead of 5 per cent. The Tribunal did not maintain the consistency and took the different view in different case though based on identical facts. One such illustration is quoted above. 15. We are satisfied that the monoblocks are covered by the aforesaid notification and are thus exigible to 3 per cent tax. 16. Consequently we answer both the questions, as noted above, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 17. This reference application is decided in terms indicated above but without any order order as to costs. 18. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal for further action, as may be necessary. Reference answered in the negative.